Introduction to the UEA - Victorian Law Reform Commission

4.6.5 Admissibility of evidence of credibility of a
person who is not a witness who has made a
previous representation
If evidence of a previous representation has been admitted in a
proceeding and the person who made it has not been called, and will not
be called, to give evidence, credibility evidence about that person is not
admissible unless the evidence could substantially affect the assessment
of the person’s credibility (s108A(1)).
In determining admissibility, the court may consider (in addition to other
factors)
(a) whether the evidence tends to prove that the maker of the
representation knowingly or recklessly made a false representation
when under an obligation to tell the truth and
(b) the period of time between the commission of the act or the
occurrence of the event to which the representation related and the
time that the representation was made (s108A(2)).
If the person against whom credibility evidence is to be led is a defendant
in a criminal proceeding, the credibility evidence is not admissible without
leave of the court (s108B(2)). However, leave is not required if the
evidence is about whether the defendant
(a) is biased or has a motive to be untruthful or
(b) is, or was, unable to be aware of or recall matters to which his or her
previous representation relates or
(c) has made a prior inconsistent statement (s108B(3)).
The court must not give the prosecution leave unless evidence adduced by
the defendant has been admitted that
(a) tends to prove that a witness called by the prosecution has a
tendency to be untruthful and
(b) is relevant solely or mainly to the witness’ credibility (s108B(4)).
These provisions limit the risk of the defendant having credibility evidence
being led against him or her which would not be admissible if he or she
gave evidence.
4.6.6 Specialised knowledge exception
The common law exception that allows credit to be re-established by
calling expert evidence, for example, to explain the behaviour of victims of
long-term family violence, is replicated by the expert opinion exception
59